This may seem like a strange one, but... would Image Stabilization (as
implemented, say, by Canon in their 17-85 EF-S) deal with the movement seen
when your heart is beating very noticeably?
I ask this because I bring cameras with me on bike rides, and will often
have been riding up a very steep hill at very high effort, and if the moment
strikes to take a picture, my heart will not have had enough time to settle
back into my chest and I can visibly feel (and see) the results when I'm
holding the camera.
Thanks-
--Mike-- Chain Reaction ...

IS and heartbeat

This may seem like a strange one, but... would Image Stabilization (as
implemented, say, by Canon in their 17-85 EF-S) deal with the movement seen
when your heart is beating very noticeably?

I ask this because I bring cameras with me on bike rides, and will often
have been riding up a very steep hill at very high effort, and if the moment
strikes to take a picture, my heart will not have had enough time to settle
back into my chest and I can visibly feel (and see) the results when I'm
holding the camera.

Re: IS and heartbeat

I beleive it would definitely help. The slowest shutter you could get
away with might be a little faster than it would be if you cooled down
first, but without the IS you would still need two stops faster.

Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

Entering your freshman dorm for the first time, and seeing
an axe head come through the door on your right.

Re: IS and heartbeat

>>This may seem like a strange one, but... would Image Stabilization (as
> I beleive it would definitely help. The slowest shutter you could get
> away with might be a little faster than it would be if you cooled down
> first, but without the IS you would still need two stops faster.[/ref]

Might be worthwhile for me to try and rent an image stabilizing lens to see,
as the IS units are a bit heavier and obviously more expensive. Plus, it's
probably one of those things where you don't get as much respect using one
(do "real" pros use IS lenses? Of course they probably do, given appropriate
conditions, but I'll bet many people see them as a crutch for poor
technique).

Re: IS and heartbeat

Real pros who shoot sports use IS lenses, they need every bit of edge
they can get to stop the action and get a crisp shot. I shoot
horses[1], and every equine photographer I know uses an IS lens if
they can afford one.

Re: IS and heartbeat

JC Dill wrote:
>
> Real pros who shoot sports use IS lenses, they need every bit of edge
> they can get to stop the action and get a crisp shot. I shoot
> horses[1], and every equine photographer I know uses an IS lens if
> they can afford one.
>
> jc
>
> [1] No, not that kind, not even this kind either:
>
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065088/quotes>[/ref]

A little trick I figgered out all by myself one day while using a
monopod at an airshow... I had been using the 'pod to get some shots of
aircraft taxiing by when another aircraft flew overhead - without time
to remove the 'pod so I could aim high, I just picked it up off the
ground still attached to the camera; it's weight acted to minimize
smaller jiggles. Though it changed the whole balance of the camera and
telephoto lens, I found it quite easy to compensate after a few shots.
Retracting the leg made it more manouverable and limited casualties
amongst folks nearby... ;^)

I've also had success just leaving my Slik ball head attached to the
camera - much smaller, but still massive enough to provide greatly
smoothed panning.

Re: IS and heartbeat

Hi Mike,

I.S. is always a help but to tell you the truth, with the 17 to 85 lens it
is not so significant as when using a telephoto of long length. At 17mm
the shake is far less of a problem than at say, 200mm.
Ironman ken.

Re: IS and heartbeat

> I.S. is always a help but to tell you the truth, with the 17 to 85 lens it

Ken: I was figuring it (IS) would be irrelevant at shorter focal lengths,
but I've noticed on my lowly Olympus 5050, at an effective focal length of
only 100mm, I could use a bit of help when the heart is pounding. The
effective focal length of the long end of the 17-85 is 135mm.

Ideally, I'd love a compact 17-125 (which would be about 28-100 equivalent).
And, of course, I'd want IS with that. And F3.5 throughout its range. And
fast focusing. And affordable. Yeah, that's it. Is that too much to ask?
:>)

Re: IS and heartbeat

>> (do "real" pros use IS lenses? Of course they probably do, given
>
> I don't think anyone sees them as such. In low-light conditions, or
> conditions that don't allow use of a tripod, they're a must.[/ref]

Interestingly, a professional photographer whose work I admire very much
(Graham Baxter, www.GrahamBaxter.com) feels that they're entirely useless,
at least the Nikon VR versions. I found this very surprising, given that he
shoots from the back of a motorcycle during bicycle races. I would have
thought that something that would dampen the effect of bumps etc would have
been beneficial, but he doesn't just dislike them, he hates them. But, he
did qualify it by saying that his only experiences were with Nikon equipment
(he's a full Nikon kind of guy).

"Brian Baird" <right> wrote in message
news:verizon.net...
>
> I don't think anyone sees them as such. In low-light conditions, or
> conditions that don't allow use of a tripod, they're a must.
>
> Additionally, the longer IS lenses help dampen vibration caused by the
> shutter of the camera - very useful, I'm told.[/ref]

Re: IS and heartbeat

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:51:13 GMT, Brian Baird <right> wrote:

>
>I don't think anyone sees them as such. In low-light conditions, or
>conditions that don't allow use of a tripod, they're a must.
>
>Additionally, the longer IS lenses help dampen vibration caused by the
>shutter of the camera - very useful, I'm told.[/ref]

They (IS or VR lenses) are lighter and cheaper than a 2-stop larger
aperture lens of the same focal length, so if subject motion doesn't
require the faster shutter the big lens would allow, and you can't use
a tripod, the conclusion is clear. It has nothing to do with
technique, but rather what sort of shot you want to get, under what
conditions.

Re: IS and heartbeat

In article <ijdNd.811$news.prodigy.net>,
com says...
>
> Interestingly, a professional photographer whose work I admire very much
> (Graham Baxter, www.GrahamBaxter.com) feels that they're entirely useless,
> at least the Nikon VR versions. I found this very surprising, given that he
> shoots from the back of a motorcycle during bicycle races. I would have
> thought that something that would dampen the effect of bumps etc would have
> been beneficial, but he doesn't just dislike them, he hates them. But, he
> did qualify it by saying that his only experiences were with Nikon equipment
> (he's a full Nikon kind of guy).[/ref]

That's bizarre... or he's expecting miracles from IS.

Considering performance of the IS lens with IS off is almost identical
to a standard lens, it makes you wonder why he would be annoyed for
having the option. It also makes you wonder if he did A/B comparisons
of IS on and IS off.

Re: IS and heartbeat

Rodney Myrvaagnes wrote:
[]

It shows an interesting choice, though. On my Panasonic FZ20 I have a
432mm equivalent f/2.8 VR/IS lens light enough to hold in one hand.
Entire camera is a few hundred dollars. Obviously it's not doing the same
job as the SLR lens, but for some purposes it's quite close.

Re: IS and heartbeat

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:

From the back of a motorcycle the vibration level (frequency and
possibly amplitude) may be outside the range of control of the VR
system. If that occurs then the VR not only can't 'damp' out the
vibrations but could actually make things worse. (Perhaps the VR (and
IS) systems detect out of range conditions and stop trying too).

Re: IS and heartbeat

>>Ideally, I'd love a compact 17-125 (which would be about 28-100
>
> Maybe a bit much. Canon does make a 28-135 f3.5/5.6 IS and a
> 17-85 f4-5.6 IS though. Better offering than Nikon, anyway, sadly.
>
> --
> Ken Tough[/ref]

Do I even want to look up the cost of the 28-135? Nah, no need. It would
overlap the range of the 17-85 by too much. On the other hand, you could
always use an inexpensive prime wideangle lens, or even a non-IS zoom of
perhaps 17-40 or so, along with the 28-135.... yeah, that's the ticket! But
then you're up there in $$$ plus too much to haul around on a bicycle (that
you're trying to keep light so you can keep up with everyone else).